From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:eOidnUACLI9Z73jWnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4be4b331$0$15023$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:D8adnRV2I40Ox3nWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>>>>> do you object to?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>>>>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>>>>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>>>>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>>>>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>>>>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>>>>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>>>>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>>>>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
>>>> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
>>>> existed at the time of her decision.
>>>
>>> What precedents?
>>
>> The ones upholding affirmative action. I'm sure you were aware that in
>> Ricci she ruled against white and Hispanic firefighters. Acccording to my
>> notes, she is Hispanic. Your statement that she gave preferential
>> treatment to Hispanic people is contrary to the decision you are relying
>> on.
>
> You are correct, but there were seventeen whites and ONE Hispanic. I had
> forgotten the one Hispanic. Mea culpa. It was still mainly a ruling
> against white firefighters, based on their race. And I don't know about
> precedents "upholding affirmative action." Precedents have been mixed, I
> think.
>
> In any case her ruling was sublimely stupid and completely racist.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> That decision doesn't make her a
>>>> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
>>>
>>> I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she
>>> downplayed her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of
>>> agenda would.
>>>
>>>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
>>>> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
>>>> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
>>>> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
>>>> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.
>>>
>>> I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
>>> lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been
>>> pretty well debunked.
>>
>> When? Citation please.
>
> I can't provide you with any off hand; it is my impression from what I've
> read about the subject over the years. IQ tests are not supposed to be
> based on one's knowledge or schooling, and I am not aware of any proof
> that they are, or on any other factor that would skew them in favor of
> some race or other population group.
>
That's correct. An IQ test tests your ability to learn, and not what you
have already learned, or been educated in. As such, they are rather
difficult to create. Ideally, they should be language irrelevant, and
experience irrelevant, and this is not easy to accomplish, but the
psychologists have been able to come up with some pretty good ones in recent
years. I have trouble measuring my own IQ, because most every test I can
find has questions on it that I have seen in the past.....I did find one a
few months ago that I hadn't seen before, and I took it and it measured only
about 5 points less than the IQ I had when I was 10 years old, so I took it
as being quite accurate. (I am 74) I think a five point drop by the time you
are in your middle 70's is pretty reasonable.....

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:PqudnSRxdeZX6XjWnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:komdnQ1lwKUsR3nWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:D8adnRV2I40Ox3nWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>>>>> do you object to?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>>>>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>>>>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>>>>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>>>>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>>>>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>>>>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>>>>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>>>>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
>>>> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
>>>> existed at the time of her decision.
>>>
>>> What precedents?
>>>
>>>> That decision doesn't make her a
>>>> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
>>>
>>> I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she
>>> downplayed her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of
>>> agenda would.
>>>
>>>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
>>>> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
>>>> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
>>>> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
>>>> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.
>>>
>>> I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
>>> lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been
>>> pretty well debunked.
>>>
>> If you are testing people for a specific job, you should ask questions
>> that are applicable to the job, and if the evaluator of the test results
>> does not know who took the test (is unaware of the race or color of the
>> testees) then the results should be fair to all races and ethnic groups.
>> If all this is true, and you still end up with an all white group of
>> firemen, then who can you blame for that?
>
> Just so. In one large city (I forget which) a few years ago, not a single
> black in the police department could pass the test for sergeant. I believe
> they tried more than once, with the same result. So they just went ahead
> and promoted some blacks to sergeant anyway, over whites who had gotten
> passing test scores.
>
> Now that is absolutely ridiculous.
>
Yes....But it is a sign of the times.....Part of the rationale for it, is
that when the children of those blacks come of age, they will have been
raised with the same income as the white kids, and will do as well on the
tests as the white kids as a result. But it doesn't answer the question as
to what's fair to the white kids today, does it?

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>Let me give you just one simple example of their liberal idiocy.....I used
>to use a very dangerous insecticide called "Chlordane" to kill the crawling
>insects that invaded my home. Things like ants and cockroaches and spiders.
>This stuff was really deadly. It was made by Ortho and was called "Chlordane
>44." I would buy a cup of the stuff, together with a two gallon plastic
>watering can at my local hardware store. I would fill it with two gallons of
>water and the cup of Chlordane 44. Then I would water all around my house
>where the foundation meets the ground, until the plastic sprinkler can was
>empty. Then I would throw away the watering can, and the empty 1 cup jar the
>stuff came in. I would never keep either, or any spare chlordane in my
>garage, or anyplace else. The crawling insects would not invade my house for
>over 6 months after I did this, so I would only have to do it like twice a
>year.....Then the liberals invaded my life. They stopped selling the stuff
>in 1 cup bottles......It became only available to me in 1 gallon bottles!

Graham is a crackpot who seems to think that there is some liberal
conspiracy to sell Chlordane only one 1 gallon containers. The
possibility that the companies who sold it didn't see enough profit in
8oz containers seems not to have occurred to him.

And the fact that it was banned in 1983 (who was president then?)
because it was poisonous to people seems to have escaped his
awareness. Apparently concern for people's lives is one of those
liberal things that only annoys him.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Phil H Armonick on
On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:45:47 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:

>
>What with Harrington and Palin I am beginning to think Alaska is one
>large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics.

If only that were true. The USA tends to spread them out equally amongst
all the states. This gives everyone the false perception that this level of
mental illness is "the norm". The number of Alaskan representatives only
making it more visible on the news due to the severity of their illness.
Floridians are next on the list of highest-per-capita of mentally deranged.
Partially due to how many who are senile that migrate to a warmer climate
to retire there (during their pre-senility phase).

Driving in Florida is an interesting experience. If you don't spot at least
3-5 motor vehicles per day parked on sidewalks, medians, and other areas
clearly delineated as greenery; because someone who is senile doesn't even
know how they got there; then consider yourself lucky. The rate of this
occurrence increasing with the amount of rainfall. For some bizarre reason
Floridians do not cope well with rainfall and motor vehicles. During any
rain you will find an accident at every 3rd intersection. Surprisingly too,
the rate of accidents on perfectly straight roads with no hills nor valleys
(as mild as they are everywhere in FL), during rainfall is even higher than
that on roads riddled with intersections. Perhaps the old and senile fall
asleep from their medication while driving on a boring straight and
intersectionless roads.

I strongly suspect that Neil has had his own share of "how did my car get
here?" experiences for the last few years, no matter what state of the USA
he lives in. It would fit (justify) all his other words.


From: tony cooper on
On Sun, 16 May 2010 05:18:39 -0500, Phil H Armonick
<parmonick(a)yahoo.org> wrote:

>Driving in Florida is an interesting experience. If you don't spot at least
>3-5 motor vehicles per day parked on sidewalks, medians, and other areas
>clearly delineated as greenery; because someone who is senile doesn't even
>know how they got there; then consider yourself lucky. The rate of this
>occurrence increasing with the amount of rainfall. For some bizarre reason
>Floridians do not cope well with rainfall and motor vehicles. During any
>rain you will find an accident at every 3rd intersection. Surprisingly too,
>the rate of accidents on perfectly straight roads with no hills nor valleys
>(as mild as they are everywhere in FL), during rainfall is even higher than
>that on roads riddled with intersections. Perhaps the old and senile fall
>asleep from their medication while driving on a boring straight and
>intersectionless roads.
>

Where is this "Florida" of which you speak? I've lived in two
midwestern states and in Florida for over 30 years. Florida drivers,
on-average, are no better or worse than drivers from other states.

Driving in the Miami area is a frightening and dangerous experience.
Road rage is common, and often results in gunfire. Driving in
southwest Florida is frustrating, but it's the northern tourists who
are the problem. Tampa and Jacksonville drive the drivers up the
wall, but that's because the road system was planned by drunken
monkeys.

Many accidents happen in the rain, but that's because rain is frequent
and unexpected during certain times of the year. Older drivers in
cities like St Petersburg and around The Villages can be a problem,
but a less dangerous problem than young crotch rocket motorcyclists.

I've traveled around the US extensively on business and rate Boston
drivers as the absolute worst in the US. Entering a rotary in Boston
is akin to driving a bumper car in a kamikaze pilot training school.
Driving anywhere in Washington DC is difficult since no one knows
where they are going or how to get there because of the way the
streets veer off. Los Angeles isn't bad if you stay off the freeways,
but you can't get off the freeways once you are on them.

Some Floridians may park on sidewalks, but in Baltimore and
Philadelphia drivers unable to park simply abandon their cars in the
middle of a busy street when they go to some store to do business.

NYC expressways can be hazardous, but that's because you have to weave
around disabled vehicles being stripped by vandals. Then there's the
cab drivers who stop to let their goats graze in the median or get
distracted by a chicken flopping around the front seat.

Chicago's OK if you avoid Lake Shore Drive and the Dan Ryan, but the
smaller streets can be a problem if everyone is moving their cars at
the same time from the snow removal side to the other side. This can
be just as serious a problem in August as it is in February because
the parking rules stay in effect.

While Boston may have the worst drivers when they're home, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and all of Canada send their worst drivers to
Florida in huge RVs to clog our highways. That wreck you saw was
caused by some motorist who finally got tired of following an RV going
40 in a 55 zone on a two-lane road for 27 miles and finally zoomed out
in a no passing zone.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida